Posted By:
Jeff LichtmanJay wrote: "If you think the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to fight there, then you are truely cluess." [sic]
This was in response to Adam's comment to which I responded. Adam wrote: "the reality is that Bush invaded Iraq for one reason and only one reason: oil." I responded: "[T]o suggest that we invaded Iraq solely for oil is really very Jimmy Carterish. ... But I also believe that a very large part of the reason Iraq was invaded was because Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors, refused to cooperate, had fomented terrorism in the middle east, and had previously used chemical weapons against his own people."
See, Jay, here is the problem with hair-trigger people such as yourself. You're so heavily emotionally invested in hating Bush and the current administration that your reading comp skills deserted you in reading the above comments. Clearly I did not suggest that oil "had nothing" to do with the war in Iraq. I merely suggested that there were other, very significant reasons for invading Iraq (mentioned above). This is the problem in America right now: people are so deeply invested in one side v. the other that they are unable to listen, reason, read intelligently and thoughtfully and instead are quick to demean, insult and attack (and even call someone "cluess" - whatever that means and I'm sure it's not a good thing).
You can be conservative and be against the war. You can be liberal and be for an aggressive stance against terrorism that does not include appeasing. Really. But to simply shut off to the other side's way of thinking without rationally addressing it and listening to it is really dopey and harmful to all of us.